I think the biggest issue is that the national RKBA organizations don't appeal to the younger, minority, liberal, voters. it's too easy for the gun-control advocates to paint the RKBA folks as old racist white men out of touch with the current US.

I'm young, and a minority, and although my friends know i'm very pro-RKBA, acquaintances are little take a back when they found out how pro-RKBA I am, since I don't fit the perceived mold.

the NRA did a GREAT thing by hiring colin noir -- minority, young, and uses social media, that's a good first step, they need to market to that crowd more.

I think the biggest issue is that the national RKBA organizations don't appeal to the younger, minority, liberal, voters. it's too easy for the gun-control advocates to paint the RKBA folks as old racist white men out of touch with the current US.

I'm young, and a minority, and although my friends know i'm very pro-RKBA, acquaintances are little take a back when they found out how pro-RKBA I am, since I don't fit the perceived mold.

the NRA did a GREAT thing by hiring colin noir -- minority, young, and uses social media, that's a good first step, they need to market to that crowd more.

It's a demographic change you cannot stop: as more and more of our population lives in large crowded metro areas and open spaces re developed, there is less interest in hunting and, as a consequence, firearms ownership. Since fewer and fewer own firearms (because they don't have access to place to use them nor a reason to want to—except criminals or the few who want self-defense, sport, or hunting firearms ), they learn about them from the media and entertainment and they grow to fear them. Converting them one by one is like picking up the grains of sand on a beach to remove the beach. The sand build up faster than you can move it. California displays this trend clearly.

I really don't have an answer but we have two choices: stay and fight until the demographics overwhelms us or leave to states where teh rural population represents enough people to prevent loss of firearms rights. But, seeing what is happenign on Colorado, some formerly rural and conservative states are changing with that demographic trend. the only really safe stets are probably, in the West: Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Alaska, and the Dakotas and in the Center: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and some Southern states like MI, MO, AR, KY, TN, AL...

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
ó
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adamsóbut I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

I havent been here long enough to figure out who's who. But my guess is you do get some lurkers who dont support 2a. But if you're a regular person who hasn't bought a new gun in years, or just buying your first, this is new territory. What would you prefer, keeping it a closed club or putting up with irritating questions and ideas from noobs? I truly dont know what your answer to that question is.

There is no reason that anyone need answer an "irritating" question on a forum like this. There is almost always someone with greater patience and resolve who is willing to do so.

Some people simply need to practice greater self control. They need to learn to skip over threads they find "irritating."

One only needs to look at posts on Calguns to see a reason we do not present a more united front. I see too many posts that insult people. We must embrace every person who comes to these forums. Our sole uniting cause must be the preservation of the 2A.

Pounding on people for their other views: politics, lifestyle, age, race, gender, et cetera is a sure way to lose the day.

Amen...

The use of ad hominem attacks on this forum and others is very sad. All it largely does is highlight the ignorance and shortcomings of the person getting upset. It also show a non-united front as you mention.

We have not realized that there is no "final victory", and that "eternal vigilance" is not just a cute slogan. We need to ALWAYS be on the offensive.

Exploit the greatest weakness of the opposition: they simply don't know what they are talking about. There is just no way that anyone should be able to mouth the words "assault weapon" (for instance) without drawing derisive laughter. Educating the wider public is key.

We need to communicate our message both intellectually AND emotionally. I recently (and accidentally) did this by stating to a friend "Why do you trust people on gun control who don't even care enough about the victims to educate themselves about what it is they propose to control?" This appeal was factually correct and emotionally consistent ... and led to a good discussion on the merits.

Good points. Many often lament that the opposition will "never stop." Yeah, no kidding -- that's why we always have to be on guard.

Not when, like in this case, it's true. It has nothing to do with not being able to influence the thread and everything to do with the same topic being brought up in various incarnations every few days by the same attention craving poster who constantly makes claims with no facts to back them up.

Why do you lack the personal self-control that keeps you from simply skipping over threads you find objectionable? Do you honestly know? I hope you realize that's your problem. If you think you're actually providing some sort of service with your childish comments then you need to recognize that you are sadly mistaken.

You need to focus on controlling your own behavior. Skip the threads you can't handle. You're certainly not adding anything to the discourse. All you are doing is trying to control others by crapping on threads (rf. posting #7 on this thread.) That's childish behavior. If you think you're fooling anyone, rest assured that you are not.

Why do you lack the personal self-control that keeps you from simply skipping over threads you find objectionable? Do you honestly know? I hope you realize that's your problem. If you think you're actually providing some sort of service with your childish comments then you need to recognize that you are sadly mistaken.

You need to focus on controlling your own behavior. Skip the threads you can't handle. You're certainly not adding anything to the discourse. All you are doing is trying to control others by crapping on threads (rf. posting #7 on this thread.) That's childish behavior. If you think you're fooling anyone, rest assured that you are not.

Here are the likely possibilities:

1) It is an admitted fact that there are paid shills whose purpose is to disrupt and derail political discussion forums.

Thinking that it is only the democrats that are creating new gun laws. How many laws in California and the rest of the country were signed in by republicans. People look at one side and ignore their own people. And when it does happen they just say that they are not republicans, they are rino's. Like it makes it ok. People need to stop pointing fingers at one side and open their eyes to see we are being attacked by both sides. Yes more of the attacks are from the right currently, but if you look at the gun laws in California, the majority of the big ones were signed into law by republicans.

You're quite correct. The 2A is not only being attacked from both sides, it also receives support from both sides. Some cannot seem to grasp that. It's too easy to have the "liberals" scapegoat to blame for all the ills in today's world.

More and more I believe that those that automatically proclaim that "liberals/Democrats" are the sole source of attacks on the 2A are themselves attacking the 2A.

Too many Americans are either ignorant or lazy. This causes pro-civil rights people to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win and it causes many other people to vote for the candidate who promises freebees who also happens to want to strip civil rights from the individual and those voters have no problem giving those rights up as long as they dont have to work for a living because they know they can get a gun anyway.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin

(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford8N

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

Too many Americans are either ignorant or lazy. This causes pro-civil rights people to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win and it causes many other people to vote for the candidate who promises freebees who also happens to want to strip civil rights from the individual and those voters have no problem giving those rights up as long as they dont have to work for a living because they know they can get a gun anyway.

The "ignorant" part was definitely represented in the choices...

What do you mean when you say "to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win?"

What do you mean when you say "to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win?"

I mean to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin

(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford8N

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

I mean to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win.

You said: "This causes pro-civil rights people to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win."

What the hell does that mean? They vote for candidate whose ideology they agree with (a pretty darned good reason to vote for someone) rather than the other candidate who has a better chance of winning?

Demographics and the declining number of shooters. How many kids in junior high and high school (much less their parents and grandparents for the rapid cycles of bastardy) have any familiarity with firearms, instead of being reflexively afraid of them?

Voted "We have not done our part in introducing others to hunting and the shooting sports." but it's a macro problem not a micro one. Taking a hippie or two out shooting doesn't help the big picture, especially if they don't take it up as a hobby instead of a one time thing. The entire HS and culture needs to appreciate the principle behind the right to self defense, hunting, etc.

__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

We are not going to give up our guns when we can't trust our government. We are holding onto our firearms so we can overthrow the government when the right time comes. We need to defend ourselves against the police/military when the politicians order them to fire upon us.

__________________
Never shoot a large caliber man with a small caliber bullet.

In my opinion, I think one of the biggest failures is that many (even most) who claim to support the 2nd Amendment really don't support it. People who claim to be pro gun support background checks, limits on full autos, favor permission to exercise a right (CCW rather than Constitutional carry), bans on OC, bans on convicts owning firearms, etc. Those are all plainly unconstitutional. If the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the right of the People to be armed against a tyrannical government, then any and all gun laws subvert that purpose. The 2A was supposed to protect against the government, so allowing that very entity is was designed to protect against to dictate how it is exercised is a plain violation of it.

Now I know people are going to say we need to compromise to get anything done. But "compromise" is what got us to where we are now. The People didn't think that regular citizens should be able to own machine guns, so they supported the NFA. The People didn't think that regular citizens need to open carry, so they supported the Mulford Act. And the list goes on.

We need to get back to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which was protection against a tyrannical government. When the 2A is thought of in those terms, the idea of any gun control seems ludicrous.

The way I see it, Democrats are the enemy and many but not all Republicans are too willing to compromise with them. The failure to elect pro 2nd candidates who are unwilling to water down the US Constitution is the biggest problem our side faces.

Set the Democrat party on fire and hold the Republicans feet to the flames.

The way I see it, Democrats are the enemy and many but not all Republicans are too willing to compromise with them. The failure to elect pro 2nd candidates who are unwilling to water down the US Constitution is the biggest problem our side faces.

Set the Democrat party on fire and hold the Republicans feet to the flames.

I would say that people who share your opinion (no matter what their political party affiliation) are also the enemy...

Demographics and the declining number of shooters. How many kids in junior high and high school (much less their parents and grandparents for the rapid cycles of bastardy) have any familiarity with firearms, instead of being reflexively afraid of them?

Voted "We have not done our part in introducing others to hunting and the shooting sports." but it's a macro problem not a micro one. Taking a hippie or two out shooting doesn't help the big picture, especially if they don't take it up as a hobby instead of a one time thing. The entire HS and culture needs to appreciate the principle behind the right to self defense, hunting, etc.

We are not going to give up our guns when we can't trust our government. We are holding onto our firearms so we can overthrow the government when the right time comes. We need to defend ourselves against the police/military when the politicians order them to fire upon us.

I would say that people who share your opinion (no matter what their political party affiliation) are also the enemy...

Name one Democrat politician that can be trusted with your RKBA. I see things as they really are. I consider anyone who promotes the limiting or outright banning of a civil right as the "enemy." So, if they consider me the enemy for holding this opinion of them, well, that's too fu#king bad.

For those who don't *get it*:
1. has already been in place since 1986
2. means only within the gun show premises, a very minor loss for those too lazy to walk outside and conduct their private business.
3. should be obvious... These may not even exist.

At the very least, it will disrupt their talking points and force them to learn more about the subject of firearms.

They want the entire population compleatly 100% disarmed !
The points above are only the beginning !

The goal is international law enforced by the evil United Nations ! Yes I can prove it.
Unfortunately the Democratic Party ,most educators,major media are all on board with this agenda with the idea of international law.

So far we have lots of influence with the Republican Party ,this is why Soros and company promote the Unelectable libertarian candidates !

Name one Democrat politician that can be trusted with your RKBA. I see things as they really are. I consider anyone who promotes the limiting or outright banning of a civil right as the "enemy." So, if they consider me the enemy for holding this opinion of them, well, that's too fu#king bad.

Not one inch will I retreat.

Here is what you said (emphasis mine):

"The way I see it, Democrats are the enemy and many but not all Republicans are too willing to compromise with them..."

You didn't limit your comment to politicians...

If you open a newspaper these days there are stories of Democratic US Senators that are getting attacked right now for their pro-2A stance. That might be a place for you to begin.

Your anti-Democrat comments are also by no means mitigated by saying "Not one inch will I retreat."

They want the entire population compleatly 100% disarmed !
The points above are only the beginning !

The goal is international law enforced by the evil United Nations ! Yes I can prove it.
Unfortunately the Democratic Party ,most educators,major media are all on board with this agenda with the idea of international law.

So far we have lots of influence with the Republican Party ,this is why Soros and company promote the Unelectable libertarian candidates !

California demographics have changed and the rising majority groups don't have a gun culture.

Gun rights have until recently not been presented to the general public as a civil rights issue.

Most people are ignorant of what current gun laws and regulations are.

In general most people believe that their must be a balance between personal rights and public safety.

Now when you combine the above value with distorted images and lies that media and anti gun government officials spit out, guess what the results are.

As Brandon points out, we need to not be silent, let our voices be heard at the government level.

We need to actually get off the computer and when we go shooting, take along some new people. We get an opportunity to talk with people, show them that we aren't fire breathing trolls.

Whenever the opportunity presents itself, we should try to link gun rights with other rights.

Something to consider here, if we are against other people's rights, you can expect them to come back and attack the rights we care about.

What goes around comes around.

I bring this last point up because the gay community is anti gun and when I have talked with people as to why they are anti gun, many respond because gun owners are anti gay. A childish tit for tat, but that is what we are dealing with.

The Black community has been the real target of gun control laws since the Civil War. The Mulford Act was enacted specifically to disarm Blacks, especially the Black Panthers.

Everything we do does not have to involve shooting, just needs to involve gun owners.

Many people in Democratic Underground have shifted to pro gun because Jim March joined their effort regarding fixing voter fraud via electronic voting.

Jim's prime focus for the last few years shifted from gun rights to protecting integrity of voting because he feels that if that is lost, it could lead to disastrous results.

In general, that was a "lefty issue" and many people involved in the cause couldn't believe Jim would side with him.

State Senator Ron Wright (Black Liberal Democrat) spoke at a GS2AC event a few years back and told us that his Democratic friends just couldn't believe that we actually supported him.

Perhaps what we need to do is have regular get togethers where we hang out in person, parades are good things because we can meet each other, set up for the parade, take a walk with pro gun messages in front of how ever many people and maybe break stereotypes of who we are.

California demographics have changed and the rising majority groups don't have a gun culture.

Gun rights have until recently not been presented to the general public as a civil rights issue.

Most people are ignorant of what current gun laws and regulations are.

In general most people believe that their must be a balance between personal rights and public safety.

Now when you combine the above value with distorted images and lies that media and anti gun government officials spit out, guess what the results are.

As Brandon points out, we need to not be silent, let our voices be heard at the government level.

We need to actually get off the computer and when we go shooting, take along some new people. We get an opportunity to talk with people, show them that we aren't fire breathing trolls.

Whenever the opportunity presents itself, we should try to link gun rights with other rights.

Something to consider here, if we are against other people's rights, you can expect them to come back and attack the rights we care about.

What goes around comes around.

I bring this last point up because the gay community is anti gun and when I have talked with people as to why they are anti gun, many respond because gun owners are anti gay. A childish tit for tat, but that is what we are dealing with.

The Black community has been the real target of gun control laws since the Civil War. The Mulford Act was enacted specifically to disarm Blacks, especially the Black Panthers.

Everything we do does not have to involve shooting, just needs to involve gun owners.

Many people in Democratic Underground have shifted to pro gun because Jim March joined their effort regarding fixing voter fraud via electronic voting.

Jim's prime focus for the last few years shifted from gun rights to protecting integrity of voting because he feels that if that is lost, it could lead to disastrous results.

In general, that was a "lefty issue" and many people involved in the cause couldn't believe Jim would side with him.

State Senator Ron Wright (Black Liberal Democrat) spoke at a GS2AC event a few years back and told us that his Democratic friends just couldn't believe that we actually supported him.

Perhaps what we need to do is have regular get togethers where we hang out in person, parades are good things because we can meet each other, set up for the parade, take a walk with pro gun messages in front of how ever many people and maybe break stereotypes of who we are.

Nicki

Commenting here does not come at the expense of writing my reps, writing my local newspaper, range time or educating others in the use of firearms. I suspect that's true of quite a few here.

What needs to stop are those that believe parroting "not one inch", wearing "molon labe" t-shirts or constantly whining about "liberals" is an effective way to support our RKBA. Such people do damage.

Public gatherings are potentially a great idea. However when I have watched them on the Internet (there has not been one within 200 miles of my home) the look and actions of the group in general seems to reinforce the unfortunate stereotype that many hold of gun owners.

-Using logic and reason against emotion. People tend to glaze over when you start spewing facts and figures. They listen when people say there will be blood in the streets even though that never happens.

-Saying stupid stuff like "if guns kill people, spoons made me fat".

-The fragmentation between groups of gun owners. Cowboy shooters selling us out on the hand gun roster for example.

Commenting here does not come at the expense of writing my reps, writing my local newspaper, range time or educating others in the use of firearms. I suspect that's true of quite a few here.

What needs to stop are those that believe parroting "not one inch", wearing "molon labe" t-shirts or constantly whining about "liberals" is an effective way to support our RKBA. Such people do damage.

Public gatherings are potentially a great idea. However when I have watched them on the Internet (there has not been one within 200 miles of my home) the look and actions of the group in general seems to reinforce the unfortunate stereotype that many hold of gun owners.

Then organize your own. Maybe if you put your efforts into doing something the way you think it should be done instead of constantly pointing out what you think is wrong with everyone else, you might actually accomplish something. The reason that you always see what you refer to as "the unfortunate stereotype" is because these are the people that actually get of their *** and work to support your 2nd A rights instead of sitting at a keyboard and whining about what gun rights groups are doing wrong.

__________________

You can't buy happiness but you can buy guns and that's pretty much the same thing.

When reality, logic, statistics, facts, history, the law, and common sense are all on our side and we still cannot communicate a persuasive message to those who are undecided and/or underinformed, it is our fault.

We need to stop pointing fingers at other people and start looking at what we are saying, how we are saying it, how we carry ourselves, and how we communicate generally.

__________________"The Religion of Peace":Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776
NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO

"The way I see it, Democrats are the enemy and many but not all Republicans are too willing to compromise with them..."

You didn't limit your comment to politicians...

If you open a newspaper these days there are stories of Democratic US Senators that are getting attacked right now for their pro-2A stance. That might be a place for you to begin.

Your anti-Democrat comments are also by no means mitigated by saying "Not one inch will I retreat."

Blaming everything on "liberals" ultimately hurts our RKBA.

When I say Democrats, I mean the political party that has consistantly attempted to take the RKBA away from the citizens of this country. Why any gun owner or anyone who understands the true intent of the founding dads would vote for a Democrat politician is a great mystery. Sorry if that offends you or anyone else, it's the truth as I see it.
As for the few Democrats that voted against the latest gun control measure, they did so only out of fear of getting their asses thrown out come election time. It is quite clear that the Democratic leadership led by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, etc... want to take your guns away from you.
Also, I don't need to mitigate anything. I will not give one inch to the anti-gun POS's. Stuff their compromise BS where the sun don't shine.

-Using logic and reason against emotion. People tend to glaze over when you start spewing facts and figures. They listen when people say there will be blood in the streets even though that never happens.

-Saying stupid stuff like "if guns kill people, spoons made me fat".

-The fragmentation between groups of gun owners. Cowboy shooters selling us out on the hand gun roster for example.

-Letting the "I own a gun but.." group speak for us.

A great deal depends on how the facts are presented...

The "spoon analogies" are downright dumb.

How did the SASS sell-out anyone? They might have, but I'm just not aware. I don't care for SASS (even though I enjoy that sort of shooting) because it's a business doing everything it can to turn a buck.

When reality, logic, statistics, facts, history, the law, and common sense are all on our side and we still cannot communicate a persuasive message to those who are undecided and/or underinformed, it is our fault.

We need to stop pointing fingers at other people and start looking at what we are saying, how we are saying it, how we carry ourselves, and how we communicate generally.

You're right... Imagine for a moment if the facts, the law and the reality were solidly on the side of the anti-2A camp. Confiscation would have started 20+ years ago.

The NRA does not succeed by shaping public opinion. It does not win by driving policy. It has succeeded (for now) because it's superb at targeting and influencing individual politicians.

In the meantime the "molon labes" and the "not one inch" crowd reinforce the very unfortunate stereotype of a gun owner...

How did the SASS sell-out anyone? They might have, but I'm just not aware. I don't care for SASS (even though I enjoy that sort of shooting) because it's a business doing everything it can to turn a buck.

Here's a quote I found from bwiese that he posted a few years back.

"In case you haven't noticed, we're in 'occupied territory'. NRA CA leadership would of course love to make it all go away with a magic wand.
If you have the ability to show those folks how to remove it given the current seating in the legislature, I'm sure they'd wanna hire you

NRA is just a few folks PLUS YOU on the phones/email.

But we were stabbed in the back by CAFR/CRPA' Kathy Lynch and Gerry Upholt.

We got the safe gun list in SB15 because of CRPA/CAFR screwup (in conjunction with SASS). It passed by a very few votes and when CRPA's + SASS lobbyists didn't object - since it helped protect large gun dealer/distributors as it gave them a competitive advantage over smaller gun dealers (who couldn't deal with the added inventory costs of turning around guns that fell off the Roster, unlike big guys that could just rotate 'em back to the distributor). The SASS guy got bought off when he got his precious single-actions protected.

When fence-sitting legislators saw a split amongst the 'gun people' - not realizing the deatils - they figured it wasn't unified enough and therefore a 'safe vote' to vote for.

Rolling back gun control is an incremental thing and often best done in the courts.

The recent 'journalists' exemption' is something that can slide thru and can be enhanced in future legislation.

Hell, many Calgunners might be able to use it if we start a Products Review column for makes/models"

You're right... Imagine for a moment if the facts, the law and the reality were solidly on the side of the anti-2A camp. Confiscation would have started 20+ years ago.

The NRA does not succeed by shaping public opinion. It does not win by driving policy. It has succeeded (for now) because it's superb at targeting and influencing individual politicians.

In the meantime the "molon labes" and the "not one inch" crowd reinforce the very unfortunate stereotype of a gun owner...

If you mean that we should espouse a policy other than "not one inch," I disagree.

I oppose any new law regarding firearms that does not in fact repeal an existing restriction.

I do believe, however, that we are failing to break down our message into the necessary number of bite-sized, cross-referenced, videotaped, youtubed chunks.

That being said, I do agree that taunting .gov does not lend to our persuasiveness, even though .gov deserves infinitely more than mere taunting.

__________________"The Religion of Peace":Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776
NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO

If you mean that we should espouse a policy other than "not one inch," I disagree.

I oppose any new law regarding firearms that does not in fact repeal an existing restriction.

I do believe, however, that we are failing to break down our message into the necessary number of bite-sized, cross-referenced, videotaped, youtubed chunks.

That being said, I do agree that taunting .gov does not lend to our persuasiveness, even though .gov deserves infinitely more than mere taunting.

I am saying that chanting the mantra "not one inch" is no substitute for actually working to guard our RKBA. Some here seem to think it does.

I agree that we do a rather poor job of presenting/packaging the message. I started a thread on just that subject. Many suggested it wouldn't do any good. It was so very clear to me they have no clue about what they are talking about -- they just wanted to crap on an idea they didn't understand.

The pro-gun camp does need to learn tact and the ability to communicate at some point.

"In case you haven't noticed, we're in 'occupied territory'. NRA CA leadership would of course love to make it all go away with a magic wand.
If you have the ability to show those folks how to remove it given the current seating in the legislature, I'm sure they'd wanna hire you

NRA is just a few folks PLUS YOU on the phones/email.

But we were stabbed in the back by CAFR/CRPA' Kathy Lynch and Gerry Upholt.

We got the safe gun list in SB15 because of CRPA/CAFR screwup (in conjunction with SASS). It passed by a very few votes and when CRPA's + SASS lobbyists didn't object - since it helped protect large gun dealer/distributors as it gave them a competitive advantage over smaller gun dealers (who couldn't deal with the added inventory costs of turning around guns that fell off the Roster, unlike big guys that could just rotate 'em back to the distributor). The SASS guy got bought off when he got his precious single-actions protected.

When fence-sitting legislators saw a split amongst the 'gun people' - not realizing the deatils - they figured it wasn't unified enough and therefore a 'safe vote' to vote for.

Rolling back gun control is an incremental thing and often best done in the courts.

The recent 'journalists' exemption' is something that can slide thru and can be enhanced in future legislation.

Hell, many Calgunners might be able to use it if we start a Products Review column for makes/models"

Thanks for the explanation. I have NEVER seen a more profit-focused shooting organization than SASS. Extremely inbred too.

I suspect SASS's behavior will help to spawn competition in the future.

Then organize your own. Maybe if you put your efforts into doing something the way you think it should be done instead of constantly pointing out what you think is wrong with everyone else, you might actually accomplish something. The reason that you always see what you refer to as "the unfortunate stereotype" is because these are the people that actually get of their *** and work to support your 2nd A rights instead of sitting at a keyboard and whining about what gun rights groups are doing wrong.

You and other continue to suggest that the opportunity cost for posting on gun blogs is not doing one's part to support our RKBA and that's simply not true. It's a fallacy. I hope you realize that.

I support my RKBA in other manners. I write to my reps daily. I write to my local paper and I get published. I am active in my local gun club that has outreach to non-shooters. I support the NRA and other organizations.

It's you that needs to stop whining. What you suggest is simply not true.

Those that fit the stereotype are largely those that want to bring attention to themselves. They are the ones that want to carry empty holsters, plastic rifles on slings, wear molon labe t-shirts and wave their coveted Gadsden and Gonzales flags. It's not about protecting our RKBA to them. It's about putting themselves on display and letting the world know just how bad they are (in their minds.)

They are the very sort of people that I used to run into at pro-life activities. Slowly but surely as the pro-life movement grew it attracted a larger and larger cross section of Americans. Those that get involved to bring glory to themselves have largely fallen away (once people stopped recognizing them) or they learned some manners.

You said: "This causes pro-civil rights people to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win."

What the hell does that mean? They vote for candidate whose ideology they agree with (a pretty darned good reason to vote for someone) rather than the other candidate who has a better chance of winning?

So?

While you're suffering the effects of our presidents actions, you can sleep well at night knowing that you helped him win by not voting for the opposing candidate who had the best chance of defeating him. Your impenetrable moral temple is not immune to a tyrranical president.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin

(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford8N

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

While you're suffering the effects of our presidents actions, you can sleep well at night knowing that you helped him win by not voting for the opposing candidate who had the best chance of defeating him. Your impenetrable moral temple is not immune to a tyrranical president.

You need to stop popping-off and learn how to explain your position. You wrote:

"I mean to not vote or vote based on ideology rather than voting to win." which means very little without the explanation you finally gave above.